Advanced search

to think that this is not the supermarkets fault?

(43 Posts)
fedupintheoffice Wed 23-Sep-09 11:56:35

I have so much sympathy for the parents at losing their child, but surely it is the parents responsibility to make sure their child is behaving and not endangering their safety? I don't understand why they are suing the supermarket hmm

Tortoise Wed 23-Sep-09 11:59:54

Very sad
But i agree, i don't see how it is the supermarkets fault.

alwayslookingforanswers Wed 23-Sep-09 12:03:05

very sad but I agree with you - how is it the supermarkets fault?

I also hmm at

"He said: "This is a working class neighbourhood with lots of children. We say that parents should be able to go shopping with their children in a safe environment."

This sort of accident could happen to any child in any supermarket if not being supervised properly - or even if they were being supervised tragi accidents still sadly happen. Class has got nothing to do with it.

MrsVik Wed 23-Sep-09 12:03:25

Hmm... it doesn't say what kind of 'state' the rail was in, so it's hard to comment.

I think you can't always blame the parents - accidents can happen at anytime, no matter how well supervised a child is. However, you also can't blame the supermarket (unless the rail was really dodgy, half-broken or something). It's just a tragic, tragic accident - no-one's fault.

I don't like this blame culture and agree people should take responsibility for themselves and their kids so I don't think they should sue. They must be feeling angry and lost right now, so I can see why they would be tempted.

Stayingsunnygirl Wed 23-Sep-09 12:05:36

I just saw this story too, fedup and Tortoise, and I agree with you both. It is very sad that a little boy has died, but this isn't Somerfields' fault. I understand the parents' need to lash out, and that blaming someone else means that they don't have to face up to the fact that if they had not let their child climb on some railings, this wouldn't have happened.

PeedOffWithNits Wed 23-Sep-09 12:06:15

I saw this story staring at me when I turned on the computer and i too cannot see how the supermarket are to blame, unless the railing was broken and not cordoned off.

Very Very sad, of course, but as with so many of these tragedies (toddler killed wandering onto level crossing etc) it boils down to - Parental supervision.

There are signs all over our supermarkets telling people it is dangerous to let children ride IN the food section of the trolley, there are signs with symbols indicating many ways in which trolleys should not be used, kids hanging off the end etc, yet every time I see kids in trolleys, sitting hanging on with legs tucked underneath. Its mad.
i even saw a kid of about 6 going round on a scooter, no parent in sight, whizzing up and down the aisles, bet his parents would be suing for any harm that came to him too

Stayingsunnygirl Wed 23-Sep-09 12:07:16

To be honest, MrsVik, I don't think it makes any difference what state the railing was in - the child was in a supermarket not a playground, therefore the railing wasn't there to be climbed on. If he'd been told not to use the supermarket as a playground, he'd still be alive.

PurpleEglu Wed 23-Sep-09 12:07:22

I don't believe it is the supermarkets fault. But it is probably unlikely to be the parents fault either. I think it is just a tragic accident sad

MorningTownRide Wed 23-Sep-09 12:09:07

I don't think the state of the rail has anything to do with it. The rail's purpose is not for children to swing on.

It's very sad that people see the death of a child as a way to make money.

PeedOffWithNits Wed 23-Sep-09 12:09:37

harsh though it seems, I am with you sunny - you tell your kids NOT to do that sort of thing JUST IN CASE something happens, you don't go round letting them do whatever they like thinking "it'll never happen to me"

Notalone Wed 23-Sep-09 12:09:49

I just saw this story and completely agree. What happenned to this poor little boy is tragic but it is NOT the supermarkets fault. There are hazards everywhere and it is up to the parents to supervise their child. What do they want Somerfield to do - remove every railing in every store. I can understand they are grieving and lashing out but this is not the route to take

mustrunmore Wed 23-Sep-09 12:10:54

Peedoffwithnits, this is going to sound like I'm really thick, but I've been wondering actually, what is the danger of a child in the trolley? As opposed to in the seat? I let ds2 sit in there because he's too porky for the seat now; he sits, doesnt jump around, doesnt have loads of food in there (food goes in the little section at the end, so its seperate). Am I a terrible parent? blush

KEAWYED Wed 23-Sep-09 12:11:50

I agree I think it was a very tragic accident.

I read the article a few times to see if I had missed something about the rail being faulty.

They probably just want someone to blame and it might make them feel better.

OrmIrian Wed 23-Sep-09 12:12:14

"proper little boy" what does that mean? Does it means that he wasn't discouraged from being energetic and boisterous? it seems an odd statement.

Also wtf does a working-class area got to do with it? hmm

I feel so sad for them but as far as I can see the shop isn't responsible.

StrictlyAvadaKedavra Wed 23-Sep-09 12:12:14

Very very sad for the parents but fgs, the lad could have fallen over at home and bumped his head and died. Madness, total moneygrabbing madness.

ILoveStripeySocks Wed 23-Sep-09 12:13:44

why isnt it the parents fault? if they were properly supervising their child, he would not have been swinging on a rail in a supermarket.

Very tragic though

jeee Wed 23-Sep-09 12:14:22

I doubt very much that the parents are money-grabbing. They are in shock, are angry, are sad, and probably feel the need to blame someone, anyone, because their son is dead.

PeedOffWithNits Wed 23-Sep-09 12:15:43

mustrun - I think it is to do with weight/balance - big kids hanging out and tipping the trolley over etc. Kids standing on the end even worse IMO. Also our tesco has a sign up that is about "groan" health and safety/hygeine - but seriously, why should I have to put my bread and fruit in a trolley someones DC have got dog poo all over off their shoes?

carry on doing it, but they have the right to ask you NOT to do it, AND, in the event of an accident, don't say it is the supermarkets fault LOL

Mmmmcoffee Wed 23-Sep-09 12:15:46

Yes, it was a tragedy, but how on earth was it the supermarkets fault?

They could just as soon sue the council if their kid walked into a lamppost.

It's the Nanny State gone overboard.

We should take all the warning signs off of everything and let people take their chances with real common sense. The quickest way to weed out the idiots.

Amandoh Wed 23-Sep-09 12:16:05

It's so difficult to know what to say as a child has died but I do agree that it's our responsibility as parents to watch our children (which I know is impossible 100% of the time) and make a decision as to whether we let them carry on swinging on a rail or asking them to stop.

Their solicitor says "We say that the railing should not have been there or should not have been in that state." I wonder what sort of "state" the railing was in. If it was wobbly or perhaps falling to bits then I'm surprised the supermarket didn't have a warning sign up or cones around it. But to suggest railing shouldn't be there purely because a child might swing on it and then might fall is just bonkers. Shall we just wrap padding around EVERYTHING outside of the home?

I don't allow my DS to run around in shops or climb on or under shelves and I wouldn't have let him swing on a rail in a supermarket. However, I'm not judging the parents in this case. We all parent differently and that doesn't mean other parenting methods are wrong but in this case it seems (as there are no reports that the rail broke but rather that he fell off) they allowed him to play on the railing and he fell with tragic consequences. I can't see that the supermarket was at fault. It's just a terrible accident and my heart goes out to his parents and family.

jeee Wed 23-Sep-09 12:16:13

And many children swing from rails everyday. It's not exactly terrible behaviour.

PeedOffWithNits Wed 23-Sep-09 12:18:31

one of the mums at our school died last year after falling down stairs and banging her head, leaving 2 children in the infants without a mummy sadterrible accident, but NO ONE to blame.

In the case of a child doing something with the potential to be dangerous and the parents not stopping him, they are negligent IMO.

PuppyMonkey Wed 23-Sep-09 12:20:14

Very sad but it is a bit odd the story. What state was the rail in? And where was it, that it shouldn't have been there??? Eh????

Sassybeast Wed 23-Sep-09 12:20:59

I think it's so sad - but such a natural reaction when you lose a child in such sudden, tragic circumstances. Anger at what has happened can be focused into blaming 'SOMONE'. I don't blame the parents at all - I can't imagine that they must be must be thinking 100% clearly. I think any lawyer who agrees to act for them when their grief is so raw is unscrupulous (am showing restraint there) but i also think that 'we' as a society are too quick to scream for justice, when justice isn't really applicable. Look how many people clamour for validation of their right to complain over seemingly innocuous things ? Desperately sad story and my heart goes out to them sad

MrsVik Wed 23-Sep-09 12:21:56

Well, I think there is too little information in the article for anyone to form an informed opinion.

Scenario 1: Mother and son enter supermarket. Child sees railing and makes a run towards it, with mother shouting at him / hurrying after him to come back. Kid swings on the railing, which immediately gives way, ending in him hitting his head and sadly passing away. Supermarket is aware of broken railing and has done nothing to warn customers about it, or fix it.

Scenario 2: Mother tells kid to go play somewhere so she can do shopping in peace. Kid treats supermarket like his personal playground, slips whilst swinging on a rail, hits his head and dies. Nothing previously wrong with the rail.

From the information given, both are possible, and both paint a very different picture. Scenario 1 would justify a lawsuit because the supermarket boss has opened his doors to the general public whilst knowing that his shop is a possible danger (not just to energetic kids swinging, but also to anyone who leans against the railing). Scenario 2 lays the blame fully on the parents.

The point is, we don't know the facts, so we can't factually state 'it's the parent's fault, they should have been watching their child'. Opinions are a different matter, of course, but it IS relevant to know what state the railing was in etc if you want to comment meaningfully. Just wanted to explain what I meant in my previous reply.

RIP kiddie.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now